Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) can appeal against the acquittal of Tourism Malaysia director-general Datuk Mirza Mohammad Taiyab Beg from a charge of accepting RM13,860 worth of dental treatment without consideration in 2005.

High Court Judicial Commissioner Zainal Azman Abdul Aziz allowed the MACC’s application yesterday after holding that their two-day delay in filing the petition of appeal in September was “not undue delay”.

“The reasons for the delay have also been explained and I accept them.

“I hereby find that there is basis for the application, and for substantial justice, I allow this application,” he added. He then ordered MACC to file its petition within 14 days.

On July 24 this year, Mirza was acquitted by the Sessions Court here of a charge of accepting dental treatment worth RM13,860 from Perunding Pakar Media Sdn Bhd director Zulhisyam Ayob without consideration.

The treatment was said to have been paid for by Zulhisyam, 49, through a bank cheque payable to a dental clinic.

Mirza, who was then the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board’s deputy director-general I, was said to have committed the offence at Clinical Practice Prosthodontics Sdn Bhd in Taman Tun Dr Ismail between Jan 17, 2005, and July 26, 2005.

MACC had filed their appeal against the decision on Sept 4, when it should have been filed on Sept 2.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Fariza Hamzah, from the MACC, had previously submitted that the court official had delivered the notes of evidence and grounds of judgment to the commission’s guard counter on Aug 19 and that the legal division had only accepted the documents on Aug 21. They had, therefore, filed their appeal two weeks later, on Sept 4.

Mirza’s lawyer Saseedharan Menon had also previously submitted that if a petition of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed under Section 307 (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, then the appeal shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

In his judgment, Zainal Azman said “the applicant could not have known (the appeal had been filed outside the time frame) as the stamp of receipt at the prosecution division had been dated Aug 21”.